Suits instituted before the commencement of the Tenancy Act in respect of rights acquired or liabilities incurred under any of the repealed enactments can be continued and disposed of as if the Tenancy Act had not been passed.

Headnote:
TENANCY ACT - APPLICABILITY - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS - BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS (VIDARBHA REGION AND KUTCH AREA) ACT, 1958 (BOMBAY ACT XCIX OF 1958) - SECTIONS 125, 132 - CIVIL COURTS JURISDICTION TO DECIDE TENANT STATUS - REPEALED ENACTMENTS - PENDING PROCEEDINGS - CONTINUATION AND DISPOSAL - SAVING CLAUSE - RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION - PROTECTED LESSEE - BERAR REGULATION OF AGRICULTURAL LEASES ACT, 1951 (XXIV OF 1951) - SECTION 3 - LEASE REQUIREMENT - CULTIVATION WITHOUT LEASE - TENANCY STATUS UNDER NEW ACT - SECTION 6 - LAWFUL CULTIVATION - INTERIM POSSESSION DURING APPEAL - EFFECT ON TENANCY STATUS.
Fact of the Case:

Three appeals were referred to the Full Bench to determine whether the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958 (Tenancy Act) applied to the cases and whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeals or if they fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities. The appeals arose from suits filed by landlords for possession of lands, with the defendants claiming tenant status under repealed enactments. The Tenancy Act repealed certain provisions of the Berar Land Revenue Code and the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, which conferred rights on tenants. The Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, also affected the status of the lands in question.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the suits were not instituted under any of the repealed enactments and, therefore, fell under Sub-section (2) of Section 132 of the Tenancy Act, which provided for the continuation and disposal of such suits as if the Act had not been passed. The Court rejected the argument that the suits must be deemed to have been instituted under the repealed enactments because rights were claimed under those enactments. It also held that the civil Courts had jurisdiction to decide the questions of tenant status, as Section 124 of the Tenancy Act, which barred civil Courts from deciding certain matters, did not apply to the suits since they were not instituted under the repealed enactments. The Court further held that the question of whether a defendant was a protected lessee under the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act could not be referred to the Tahsildar because the defendants did not cultivate the lands under any lease granted by the landlords and, therefore, did not satisfy the requirements of Section 3 of the Regulation.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958, applied to the cases. 2. Whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeals or if they fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Tenancy Act did not apply to the suits because they were not instituted under any of the repealed enactments. 2. The civil Courts had jurisdiction to decide the questions of tenant status because the suits were not instituted under the repealed enactments and, therefore, Section 124 of the Tenancy Act did not apply. 3. The question of whether a defendant was a protected lessee under the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act could not be referred to the Tahsildar because the defendants did not cultivate the lands under any lease granted by the landlords.
Final Decision: The Court answered the question referred to it in the negative, holding that it was not necessary to refer the questions of tenant status to the Tahsildar. The appeals were referred back to the Division Bench for hearing on merits and disposal in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT - 1. The questions referred to the Full Bench are:

(1) Whether having regard to the facts in these appeals the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958, (Bombay Act No. XCIX of 1958), apply? and

(2) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeals in view of the questions raised under the Act or they lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities ?

2. These questions have been formulated in very wide terms. Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of section 132 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958, (Bombay Act No. XCIX of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) provides that in the case of any proceeding under any of the provisions of the enactments repealed by this Act, pending before a civil Court on the date of the commencement of the Act, the provisions of section 125 of the Act shall apply. Sub-section (1) of section 125 requires a civil Court to stay the proceedings and refer such issues as under the Act are required to be decided by an authority specified in the Act, to such authority for determination. Sub-section (2) provides that after the competent authority has decided the issues referred to it, it shall communicate its decision to the civil Court and such Court shall thereupon dispose of the suit in accordance with the procedure applicable thereto. The jurisdiction of the civil Court to hear the proceedings before it has therefore, not been Completely taken away by Section 132 read with section 125 of the Act. In consultation with the learned Advocates for the parties, we have, therefore, reformulated the question for our consideration as follows:-

" Whether in Second Appeals Nos. 387 of 1952, 462 of 1952 and 6 of 1953, it is necessary to refer to the Tahsildar, under section 125 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958, questions relating to the status of parties, who claim to be tenants."

3. In order to answer this question, it will be necessary to consider the nature of the proceedings in each of these three cases. Second Appeal No. 387 of 1952 arises out of the suit filed by the landlords of survey Nos. 131 and 132 for obtaining possession of those lands. Survey No. 131 was service inam land, white survey No. 132 was khalsa land. The plaintiffs-landlords contended that defendant No. 1 had executed a kabuliyat, the period of which had expired and that they were, therefore, entitled to the possession of the lands. In answer to this claim, the defendants claimed that defendant No. 1 was a permanent tenant of survey No, 132 and a tenant of antiquity of survey No. 131. The trial Court held defendant No. 1 to be an ordinary tenant in respect of survey No. 132 and a tenant of antiquity in respect of survey No. 131, and the trial Court, therefore, granted the plaintiffs a decree for possession of survey No. 132. The claim in respect of survey No. 131 was dismissed. Both the parties appealed to the District Court. That Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court in regard to survey No. 132 that the tenancy of defendant No. 1 had been lawfully terminated and that his possession was not lawful. The District Court differed from the finding of the trial Court in regard to survey No. 131 and held that defendant No. 1 was an ordinary tenant of this land also. The order made by the trial Court dismissing the claim of the plaintiffs for possession of survey No. 131 was set aside and a decree was granted to the plaintiffs for possession of both the lands, survey Nos. 131 and 132. From this decree, Second Appeal No. 387 of 1952 was preferred to this Court. During the pendency of this appeal, the new Tenancy Act came into force. Certain rights were claimed under this Act before the Division Bench before which the second appeal came up for hearing. As the Division Bench considered that the questions raised were of considerable importance, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis